|
Post by who won on Apr 29, 2003 17:59:25 GMT -5
You're totally ignoring the argument. No problem with necessity. No problem with survival, but most of the time, people eat meat for enjoyment. Not because they have to. Therefore those same people should not feel any ill toward people who wear fur for enjoyment.
Eat it, but dont classify yourself above anyone else who uses animal products differently from you.
|
|
|
Post by who won on Apr 29, 2003 18:02:18 GMT -5
actually, you're not ignoring the argument. Are making the same case. Killing for pleasure whether for food or for fun or fur, is little different from each other. I'm not saying its wrong, i'm saying a meat eater who has the choice not to is not morally beetter than a fur wearer
|
|
|
Post by Re B12 on Apr 29, 2003 18:05:35 GMT -5
B12 is found in milk. Yo
|
|
|
Post by who won on Apr 29, 2003 18:14:42 GMT -5
Vitamin B12 is found in milk, and fortified cereal. Yes milk. Drinking milk does not require you to kill any cows
Other good sources include all common multiple vitamins (including vegetarian vitamins), cereals and soy milk."
Although there is somewhat less protein in a vegetarian diet than a meat-eater's diet, this actually an advantage. Excess protein has been linked to kidney stones, osteoporosis, and possibly heart disease and some cancers. A diet focused on beans, whole grains and vegetables contains adequate amounts of protein without the 'overdose' most meat-eaters get."
As for the studies, yes, you can find studies that link breathing to cancer, but fact is, increasing studies do find, that there is a significantly reduced risk of many terminal (cancer, heart disease) and chronic (diabetes, arthritis) diseases with a vegeterian diet.
quote from a veggie website
Raising livestock for meat is a very inefficient way of generating food. Pound for pound, far more resources must be expended to produce meat than to produce grains, fruits and vegetables. For example, more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S. is consumed in livestock production. The amount of water used in production of the average cow is sufficient to float a destroyer (a large naval ship). While 25 gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of wheat, 5,000 gallons are needed to produce a pound of California beef. That same 5,000 gallons of water can produce 200 pounds of wheat. If this water cost were not subsidized by the government, the cheapest hamburger meat would cost more than $35 per pound.
Meat-eating is devouring oil reserves at an alarming rate. It takes nearly 78calories of fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, etc.) energy to produce one calorie of beef protein and only 2 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of soybean. If every human ate a meat-centered diet, the world's known oil reserves would last a mere 13 years. They would last 260 years if humans stopped eating meat altogether. That is 20 times longer.
Thirty-three percent of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by the U.S. are devoted to the production of livestock, as compared with 2% to produce a complete vegetarian diet.
Many of the world's massive environmental problems could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating, including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of rain forests and species extinction.
The temperature of the earth is rising. This global warming, known as "the greenhouse effect," results primarily from carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas. Three times more fossil fuels must be burned to produce a meat-centered diet than for a meat-free diet. If people stopped eating meat, the threat of higher world temperatures would be vastly diminished.
Trees, and especially the old-growth forests, are essential to the survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major cause of global warming and top soil loss. Both of these effects lead to diminished food production. Meat-eating is the number one driving force for the destruction of these forests. Two-hundred and sixty million acres of U.S. forest land has been cleared for cropland to produce the meat-centered diet. Fifty-five square feet of tropical rain forest is consumed to produce every quarter-pound of rain forest beef. An alarming 75%of all U.S. topsoil has been lost to date. Eighty-five percent of this loss is directly related to livestock raising.
Another devastating result of deforestation is the loss of plant and animal species. Each year 1,000 species are eliminated due to destruction of tropical rain forests for meat grazing and other uses. The rate is growing yearly.
To keep up with U.S. consumption, 300 million pounds of meat are imported annually from Central and South America. This economic incentive impels these nations to cut down their forests to make more pasture land. The short-term gain ignores the long-term, irreparable harm to the earth's ecosystem. In effect these countries are being drained of their resources to put meat on the table of Americans while 75% of all Central American children under the age of five are undernourished.
etc,
|
|
|
Post by alexmd on Apr 29, 2003 21:37:55 GMT -5
I'm not saying its wrong, i'm saying a meat eater who has the choice not to is not morally beetter than a fur wearer ROFL you stick to your veggies and i'll stick to my fillet mignon thank you very much. and if i didn't look gay i'd wear fur too. anybody who wishes to spray paint on it be warned i will shoot on sight! ROFL for petes sake my parents risked their life comming to canada in a freaking container with 180$ in their pocket so they and us the kids can have a diet change from the soia salame and whole weat bread the communists were feeding us and you argue we should go back because some shaky statistics on a veggie site? pleeeeezzzzz also please note that the 75% undernourished kids are not my fault. if they know they can't feed them why make'em?
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Apr 29, 2003 21:58:02 GMT -5
also please note that the 75% undernourished kids are not my fault. if they know they can't feed them why make'em? That’s better, let's have a go at those Bastards in the Vatican. Living in their Gilded Palaces, whilst condemning their followers to a life of misery.
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Apr 30, 2003 0:29:42 GMT -5
bottom line: if you stuff your face with meat just because you like the taste, and you shed crocadile tears when enimals are killed for their fur or due to the type of cruelty as the starter of this thread pointed out, you/we are hypocrites.
da silva, eating meat, wearing fur hell even shagging sheep may be acceptable if an alternative is not available.
smokingun
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Apr 30, 2003 1:44:43 GMT -5
Try tellin' DC that ...And i'll also say a pre-emptive dont go there!
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Apr 30, 2003 8:28:22 GMT -5
Who Won-
Yes Milk has B12- it is an animal product:
How is it any more inhumane to keep cows for milk production than for food production- they live a similar lifestyle (if anything meat cows are more pampered- to get them nice and fat).
Milk cows are not allowed to dry up naturally- they live their entire lives uncomfortably loaded with milk long past what is natural (and milk cows have been bred over the centuries to produce more milk than their teets can comfortably hold).
How is not hypocritcal to say its OK to keep cows in an artificial state of natality- when it is not to pamper them in preparation of eating them?
And yes- I know- cows love nothing more than to be milked... but why do you think that is? The milk builds up in their udders- with no calf to constantly suckle it- it builds up to painfull quantities by the time someone comes around to take them to the milking machines.
What about eggs- do you have eggs too- once again battery hens live a lot less cushy lives than chickens. Hens have no range of movement in their factories- chickens are allowed movement to some degree at least (otherwise the meat produced is not so good)...
(BTW for those that don't know- there is a difference between chickens and hens... they are called chickens when raised for meat, hens when raised for eggs- and screwed when raised for both... LOL)
BTW- fortified cereals... How do you think they fortify cereals with B12? B12 is the most complex vitamin known- man can't synthesize it... when things are fortified with B12- they are taken from animal products.
Gelatin (Jello)- is made from animal products. As are: some soaps and detergents, a whole range of food colours, preservatives and addatives.
Whats not made from animal products is most likely tested on them. - even those that say "not tested on animals" could not have been developed if it wern't for research done by others that were tested on animals.
I can respect someone going Vegan and shunning all animal products- but I consider it unwise and unhealthy. Going vegetarian and drinking milk and consuming other animal products is just selecting which cruelties you're OK with and are not OK with!
If you want to be a vegetarian- fine- be a vegetarian... but know:
*More animals are killed in harvesting a hectare of grain than in a hectare of pastoral fields. *Unless you go Vegan- you're still going to be reliant on animal products that are collected by what may be perceived as cruel methods. *Animal products, testing, and use has enabled us to get where we are today- if it wern't for the Ox and the horse- we'd still be in the stone age... we should focus our energies on making sure animal use is done as humanely and kindly as possible- trying to force everyone to become vegetarian is rediculous and counter-productive.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Apr 30, 2003 9:36:57 GMT -5
Kill it, cook it and wear it.
Sorry SG but there is no real alternative to meat as far as I'm concerned. I believe that when a animal is killed you might as well use as much of it as you can.
Who here can say they don't have a pair of leather shoes?
|
|
|
Post by David C on Apr 30, 2003 14:04:34 GMT -5
There is nothing cruel about it.
Every time I met a sheep, it asked for more.
One day you'll understand. Maybe next year.
David
|
|
|
Post by who won on Apr 30, 2003 17:24:28 GMT -5
Milk does not require the killing of the animal, nor does it necessitate keeping the animal in harsh conditions.
And yes, I do eat eggs, and I choose wherever I can for the eggs to be from free range organic and vegetarian hens.
In India Cows are sacred animals. They produce milk and butter, their crap is used as fuel for cooking and the cows help plow fields etc. There is nothing wrong with using animals especially if it is in a somewhat symbiotic relationship, dont compare that to killing them.
Drinking a cows milk, does not compare to killing them for their meat. They can live a perfectly okay life producing milk for man.
|
|
|
Post by who won on Apr 30, 2003 17:35:56 GMT -5
Evven if all your points were valid, which they are not, as I see nothing wrong with drinking milk as it does not necessitate the slaughter of animals.
But I dont know why you're arguing against me, my point was that people who eat meat especially if it is purely for pleasure, cannot argue against the fur trade. This isnt about being a vegetarian or not.
But if you're going to argue against vegetarianism, then how about responding to the points in the previous post regarding deforestation thanks to meat consumption, and the environmental cost of eating meat that is indirectly eliminating thousands of species.
But again, this isnt meat vs vegetarianism,
this was I thought, about meat eaters (who eat excessive uneccesary amounts of meat (lets face it you claim you need the nutrition, the only vitamin you could come up with is B12), if we merely consumed what was required we could not possibly be considered hypocrits.
Yep, go wear leather goods, which are by products of animals already slaughtered for food, kill and eat a cow once a month and use every part of it, but unless you do, you cannot possibly be any higher up on the ethical ladder than people who wear fur.
Both involve killing animals unecessarily purely for pleasure not for necessity.
|
|
|
Post by JWK on May 1, 2003 2:19:00 GMT -5
There is nothing cruel about it. Every time I met a sheep, it asked for more. One day you'll understand. Maybe next year. David LOL! Who Won- cool it down a little- i believe Wycco had some extremely relevant information and to dismiss it so flippantly is a little hasty.
|
|
|
Post by who won on May 1, 2003 7:06:07 GMT -5
who said I dismissed anything flippantly?
The only argument I am putting forward that has got mixed up in some sort of idea that I am trying to convert everyone to vegetarianism or something is this:
If a person who wears fur for fashion is a despicable person, so too is a meat eater who eats animals for pleasure.
If we were to treat animlas with more respect and only eat or wear products from them as a part of our own survival or necessity, then that is one thing, but you cannot possibly claim to be any higher up on the ethical scale of morality when one day you barbecue 20 chicken wings, and the enext get upset because a guy is wearing fur.
|
|